To disagree with 3/4 year old children having more childcare paid for

[ReallyTired]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24199711

I feel the goverment should pay for education rather than childcare. 15 hours a week is enough to meet a child's educational needs for pre school. At a time of austerity, I feel there are bigger spending priorities. (Providing enough school places for children who are of complusory school age!)

If you choose to have chidlren then you should pay to look after them. I feel that labour's set of proposals are totally unaffordable and making the "banks" pay will damage the UK financial sector long term.

All these election bribes do not help the UK in the long term.

I agree totally passedgo, good old gideon is fanning the flames with his help to sell schemes. Mark Carney is in on it too. They just have to keep the ponzi scheme going at all costs. The trouble is that it is the likes of you and I that have to foot the bill when it all goes tits up

Oooo he could cycle along the towpath(sure we did that as students).

Only thing is the SW can be the career graveyard,it is for Dp's line of work.He's secure at the mo but should things change he'd have to do the opposite and commute to London.

Just make sure there are escape routes both down here and in London if the shit hit the fan.

Retro he is based in Bristol and London and normally does 3 days in London and 2 in Bristol. This can vary though. It is a pain in the arse, but he does like his job

To be clear I was referring to dual income families probably with 2 dcs as being topped up to nearly 30k.

dual income part time and a full timer you wouldnt get 30k

I am fully aware that unfortunately a £50k salary doesn't go as far as it could due to high living costs but we all have high living costs. As was said above, earning £50K makes you in the top 10% yet the rest of us in the other 90% seem to manage. It is unsavoury for some of us who struggle to hear the top 10% of earners saying that they need more. How the heck do you think the rest of the population feel?!

I say "seem to manage" but what I meant was that not all govt policies affect lower earners but you don't see them going on here and complaining.

Errr I think you do.Re the bedroom tax, tax credits lots of people complaining and lots of support.

I think people have the right to complain about what they want to on MN.

I think people are slowing starting to support each other on all sorts of things and say hang on that's shit.It my not have an impact on me but it's shit.The ridiculous unfairness re CB has had a lot of criticism from all brackets,it in turn made me look at the bedroom tax.Now I know how shit the gov are it's making me question and change my opinion on quite a few things.

Sadly I'm now running out of parties to vote for.

If you don't like that don't read the thread.

candycoated, most references are to £50k per household, not per person. The Benefit Cap is £26k which leaves around £450k a month to live on, the same applies to most households. Where one partner earns less than that it's not a lot.

Also depends on housing costs. Subsidised housing is obvs cheaper and makes a huge difference to outgoings.

Dh and I are on about 62k a year before tax. We have 2 children and another one due in January. Completely agree with ihate on this . We rarely go on holidays , infact we have never been abroad with our children , the oldest of who is 5years. And we only went to Florida for our honeymoon after we had a very low budget wedding! People think 50/60k is loads of money and it definitely isn't and regardless of that we work bloody hard for the money we do get. I do accept that we are better off than some ( and I used to be a single mum on benefits for 2 years) before I met dh. Both lives are tricky . When on benefits you have a lot already paid for , you don't need to worry about paying rent , council tax etc and when your working you end up paying through the bloody nose for it all. We pay £725 JUST on rent that's without the £130 council tax bill every month!! Sorry to rant but people on higher incomes are not rich by any means.
Over 50% of my wages go on childcare each month so I think that the 25hours would help massively !! However it should only be applied to those who are willing to go out I work whilst their kids are in nursery. Otherwise people not working will take full advantage of sitting on their asses and letting their kids be looked after all week by someone else. And that cannot be right in any way shape or form.

I agree, when compared to the cost of well...bloody everything, no £50k is not a huge amount but given that it is the top 10%, comparatively it is well off. Many people would love that much. You can complain about what you like, of course, but I reserve the right to say I think you're in a fortunate position compared to Joanne Bloggs who earns £13k a year as a FT NVQ 2 level childcare worker.

sarahleanne if the parents are that idle then surely the children are better off in a quality EYFS setting?

But if Joanne Bloggs is 18 and lives at home then £13K would be - not a fortune - but certainly passable.

When people talk about average incomes, it's a bit meaningless really. Fil used to grumble that he wished he got the average income (£25K) and completely missed the point that he was a pensioner, had hardly any outgoings, certainly no dcs to clothe and shoe.

I once saw a table which showed what average incomes were relative to your age and family status so you could see where you were properly.

It's ridiculous someone complaining about their salary being less than someone else's when they are 28 and the other person is 48 (as I have seen on MN...).

candy a household on 50k with 3 dc is in the 5th decile for household income according to the IFS calculator. That means that 50% of families are better off than them. Whilst that isn't poor, it isn't rich either if 50% of the population are richer than you (felt like I was writing a Harry Enfield sketch then )

candy 50k can be a lot, or it can be barely enough. If you live in one of the key urban areas and are renting, 50,000 doesn't get you very far if you also have a child or two or more. We pay 1400 for a 2-bed flat!

If, on the other hand, you live in a more rural area and own your home and perhaps have childcare support from family - yes, 50k could be a lot.

The point of free early education is more than giving people "free childcare" - it is about early education! And kids meeting other kids, and learning to be social beings before they go to school etc. It should be for everybody, regardless of income, and regardless of whether one parent works, none or both.

horry I see your point . But then again I'm not saying parents that stay at home (long term and never intend to work) are bad parents, just that I think it shouldn't be allowed that they have all that free time whilst their children are getting free childcare whilst the parents contribute nothing to society . There has to be a point in anyone's life where they cannot use the 'I'm a sahm' line for years and years when there children are at school 6 hours a day. Then they pop another one out and decide to stay at home for another 5 years. The increased child care hours should be used only for working parents, IMO. I totally accept other people with have other views on this that are equally relevant.

This is the issue. Peopole think these larger earnings mean you have more money. The tax calculations on the thread prove that is simply not so once you pay full time childcare, SE house prices and tax off tax and NI.
(£1300 a month gets you a pretty small one bed flat and not in the poshest bits of London plus council tax, heating etc etc)

If you move to Cornwall your £40k paying job will be more likely to pay you £13k - £20k if you are lucky but your living costs will be lower. You will not necessarily be worse off on £20k in Cornwall than £40k in London. The London working bothers are not sitting tehre spending the "extra" £20k less £33% tax/NI on champagne and yachts.

I see Sarah's point although 5 mornings a week just before school is quite important imvho and all kids should get.

Before that 15 hours is enough,I'd rather they were out in the community,at home etc.1 of the reasons for being a sahp in the first pace.

I hate to say it but I do wonder if kids from vulnerable families on very low would benefit from much more and it could save money in the long run as they'd be where they should be when they start school.

Having said that I think a sahp in education should get exactly what working parents get otherwise it is impossible to retrain,update skills after a long period off.

GBP50k a year is not a lot when you are raising children. This is why childcare should be fully deducted from taxable income. If a family has an income of GBP50k but spends $15k on childcare they should be taxed on GBP35k and support should be available to all families that fall below government guidelines.

I have friends in London with one child. Between them they earn GBP120k a year. Due to the long hours worked by both of them they have homehelp (she is not a qualified nanny) that costs them GBP30k/yr. They have about GBP35k a year to live off after tax. That is not a lot when you consider the hours they work and debt incurred to complete an education that enables them to earn a higher salary.

sarahleanne - I agree with you.

The 50/60K bracket is the worst to be in because you are not rich (even though people think you are) so you don't have the extra cash to splash about and you earn the amount which means you are entitled to no help at all meaning most of your 50K goes on tax, NI and you pay through the nose for all those things people on lower incomes can get help with; rent/council tax/school meals/childcare/tax credits or the equivalent now etc.

People say oh they must be rich on 50K, after tax, full bills/rent/council tax/childcare paying full for everything the money disappears fast yet apparently you are rich because you can pay your bills

GBP120k a year...hmmm... I say a line should be drawn SOMEWHERE!

That really is a very comfortable amount of money to be earning, even if they probably spend more than the average family on ready meals and going out for meals due to lack of time - still! And 30k on a nanny?? She must be the richest nanny in the UK.

On an income half of that 50k you get no help what so ever with rent and council tax.

NeverGetTheBestOfMe lets not forget though that there are people that can't pay their bills.

That is simply not true about the nanny. I think the good thing about this thread is that those on lower incomes can see those on higher incomes often have the same net income they do and they never realised it.

3 nursery places in London full time cost about £14k a year each x 3. a full time nanny who dioes not live in who may not be qualified might cost you for your 3 children about £25,000 a year or 20,000 but remember you pay all that nannies tax and her national insurance. On top of that you pay employer's national insurance which is 13% so if she earns gross £24,000 she will take home £19,000 and the working mother or father will pay the state about £5000 of the nanny's tax and NI. Then the working mother or father on top of that pays 13% NI whatever that will be on the gross wage - say another £3,210,. So this nanny is not very high paid on £24k a year. She receives £1583 a month and might have a London rent of £1000 or £1300 to pay. Her employers then give £5k nanny tax and about £3k employer tax back to the state. The employing parents have already paid tax on their income too and their own national insurance.

So of say £40,000 earned by the parents - £10,000 of that goes to the state in employee tax and NI> The parents get £30,000. Of that remaining £30,000 about £8000 goes to the state for nanny tax, NI and em-ployer NI. Nanny gts about £19.000 net. Parents have paid about £18,000 to the state for various taxes. Nanny gets about the same. Zero left for the parents. If they earn between them more than £40k yes they are keeping that is the balance over the £40k and probably spending it on mortgage, travel costs, clothes for work, etc. Eventually they will need no childcare and they will probably be better off than those who gave up work forever but not in the short term.

The point is you can get help with something.

I don't know who all these people on 50K are going on 2 exotic holidays a year are that someone once posted on a thread. Apparently 50K meant you were rich, could afford several expensive holidays per year, live in a big house in an expensive area etc. People go on about being ignorant of the poorer people out there yet it's ok to be ignorant about middle earners stuck between rich and poor.